DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential campaign thread 6

Seriously? This guy is already folding. He can't even manage to be on the attack.

Trump: ‘We should have a debate with no moderators’

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-no-debate-moderators-165229396.html

The moderators for the 2016 presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were announced earlier this month. But if it were up to Trump, no one would moderate them.

“We should have no moderator,” Trump said in a Monday interview on CNBC. “Let Hillary and I sit there and just debate, because I think the system is being rigged so it’s going to be a very unfair debate.”

The Republican nominee’s suggestion comes less than a week after Matt Lauer faced harsh criticism over his performance at NBC’s Commander in Chief Forum, where the “Today” show host failed to fact-check Trump’s false claim he was “totally against the war in Iraq” from the start.

“Everybody said that I won the debate,” Trump said Monday. “They all said I won and that Matt Lauer was easy on me. Well he wasn’t. He was — I thought he was very professional, I have to be honest. I think he’s been treated very unfairly.”

The former “Celebrity Apprentice” star believes that, as a result, the moderators of the upcoming debates will be unfairly harsh on him.

“What they’re doing is they’re gaming the system so that when I go into the debate, I’m going to … be treated very, very unfairly by the moderators,” Trump said. “I can see it happening right now because everyone’s saying that he was soft on Trump. Well now the new person’s going to try to be really hard on Trump just to show, you know, the establishment what he can do. So I think it’s very unfair what they’re doing. So I think we should have a debate with no moderators — just Hillary and I sitting there talking.”

View photos
The suggestion is not unprecedented. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in 1858 did not have moderators. At each of the seven three-hour debates, the first candidate spoke for one hour, the second for an hour and a half, and the first was then given a half hour to reply. (Lincoln and Douglas alternated going first.)

During the GOP primary, Trump refused to attend a May 2016 debate after complaining that moderator Megyn Kelly would be biased against him. Last summer, Kelly moderated a debate in which she confronted him over disparaging comments he had made about women.

But Trump’s idea for a moderator-less debate is a little late. Both nominees agreed to the moderators and formats announced by the commission on Sept. 2.

The bipartisan commission selected NBC’s Lester Holt, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Martha Raddatz — each first-time presidential debate moderators.

Holt will moderate the first presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., on Sept. 26. Cooper and Raddatz will co-moderate the second debate, a town-hall style forum, in St. Louis on Oct. 9. Wallace will moderate the third and final presidential debate in Las Vegas later that month.

I would love to see them go one on one.

Yep Arch, you gotta love illiterate memes.

US president's half-brother, Malik Obama, 'voting for Trump' - BBC News
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36897261

US President Barack Obama's half-brother, Malik Obama, says he will vote for Donald Trump because he "comes across as a straightforward guy".
Malik Obama, a Muslim with Kenyan and US citizenship, also told the BBC that the Republican presidential nominee's proposal for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US was "common sense".

Mr Trump's plan - pitched as a security measure - has been widely condemned.

Malik Obama has accused the president of turning his back on his family.
He told the BBC's Newsday programme it was "sort of disappointing, somewhat hypocritical" that no representatives of the Obama family from Kenya were attending the Democratic convention, taking place in Philadelphia.

The president, he said, had "made a big deal about his heritage... and now it's a complete blackout".

Malik Obama, who said he was also voting for Mr Trump in order to shift his allegiance from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.

The president's half-brother has reportedly lived in Washington since the mid-80s.

He is also an aspiring politician in Kenya, running for office in 2013, but failing in his bid to become governor of Siaya county.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father who left when he was two years old.

The president visited Kenya for the first time last year since his election in 2009.

Mr Trump, a billionaire property developer, is hoping to succeed him in November's election, where he will face Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy...4b06a74c9f50fa9

Well that's comforting.

Thankfully he's not in a position to make those kind of decisions.

Unfortunately, his boy might be.

Oh CNN....

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf...g-saudi-arabia/

War is a business.

But apparently not wanting to be in combat all the time is considered soft in this country.

Rudy is a psycho. He turned NYC into a police state when he was mayor.

Stop and Frisk*

*Only if you're not white.

NYC was a crime ridden puss hole until Rudy got there. So I give him some credit.

Except the program unfairly targeted minorities? I'm sure just as many Caucasian individuals got off free.

Edit:

Further reading from the actual reports at this link. Absolutely disgusting statistics...

He cleaned it up so apparently it wasnt unfair. Dont do the crime and you wont do the time.

Nobody wants to talk about trump panicking before the debates even start?

It was in the process of improving 2 years before he became Mayor.

I still question if the debates will even happen.

I dont think he has anything to worry about because Hillary cant even handle a basic press conference.

It should.

I hope trump shows up though. He's been setting this up for a while now.

Even if the mods are fair, like they normally are in the general debates, trump has already laid the ground work in his supporters mind that the debates are rigged.

I will.

Does no one want to talk about the obvious health issues hillary has? Or, just stick your heads in the sand?

I was hoping someone would have responded to me in the last thread about this. I feel like she's been covering it up for at least 2.5 years.

The format should be should be a series of debates, 1 per night, for an entire week.

7 days away from the campaign trail. 7 nights on total public display... with no spin, media manipulation or 'attack ads' to help your cause. One week to lay out their vision of/for America.

The debates should be 'Oxford style.'* Two subjects each night, 1 hour for each subject. Timed responses. No interrupting of opposition during their allotted time.

Each night would tackle 2 issues of national import, from the list of items we all have a stake in. (We all know the issues... they are talked about here at DT's all the time.)

7 nights. 14 subjects that shape American policy. By the end of such a format, the American public would have a clear and thorough understanding of both candidates' positions on the most important issues of the day.

The 14 items would be made public on the day they are given to each candidate. The candidates would be given 2 weeks to prepare their opening statements/arguments. The gallery would be populated by random lottery. At the end of each debate, the gallery would be polled as to which candidate presenteded the more compelling argument (in accordance with Oxford rules), but the results would be shared only to the participants. This would be for the purposes of not influencing the viewing public.

With this format, scholarship, preparedness, and discipline make or break the candidates. Also, their ability to 'think on their feet,' once the opening statements have been made. (The 'back and forth' section of an Oxford debate is where the meat of each candidate's position will be found. It's the time when the gallery is most influenced by each candidate's ability to handle the three requisites I earlier mentioned)

The three attributes I just mentioned should be requisites for anyone assuming the most influential political position on the planet... and a debate format like this would clearly separate the Player from the Pretenders.

Do this in plain view of America- and the world.

I don't care what debate format is used in the primary season. Each can do what they want, because it won't matter once the POTUS candidates are chosen. The candidate who emerges from the primary race needs to be ready for a public testing like this... because Real Life is even harder to manage than a tightly-controlled debate.

If we had this format in place as a national tradition, we'd have better potential leaders. AND we'd have a better-informed populace on voting day.

This would be my only proclamation to be made law, if I were "Temporary King Of America" for 24 hours.


.02,
Clemdawg.




* Oxford style debate format

p.s. I urge any and all of you to listen to a couple/few episodes of Intelligence Squared. Scroll the archives, and pick out a couple of topics that spark your interest. Each show takes roughly an hour of your time, but it's 'brain time' well-spent. If you do this, I promise you: it will change the way you regard your fellow posters in threads like these. It will change the way you post in threads like these. It will change the way you consider the news/information/world that's presented to you.

Our speech and debate class, mainly used to train teachers to undertake the role of a speech/debate coach, used this format. I loved it!

I had to argue in-favor of making English the national language (Ugh, it was taxing arguing for a topic I feel the opposite about...but we won! We psyched out our opponents with bringing in a random tub of books from the library (one being some random Polish dictionary...), looked through them while prepping for the debate, but came to it with a solid plan.

The second debate? We looked at merit based pay for educators, and I felt at home arguing against a merit pay system.

I learned a lot from such debates. A lot of them ended up as extremely entertaining between our classmates.



You and I both know that no one in power wants this. If they did, our power structure would look quite different. Maybe one day things will change.

That's far too great of a format. Good stuff bro

That's why I could only make this happen if I was "King Of America" for just one day.


(I limited myself to one day/one proclamation be cause I know...
...if I had a "Day Two/another proclamation"," I'd do something truly stupid- and mess up The Entire World. I know myself: I'm only good for about One Good Idea in a lifetime.)



If I won a lottery that granted me the position of "World's Most Influential Man," I'd 'go "small-ball"- something that wouldn't immediately "nuke the world," but something that could substantially change/improve the way we American citizens choose our leaders.

Most American citizens don't realize just how much they influence the way the world spins.

When they hire a President, they change how people live their lives from Boston to Baghdad to Bangladesh.

Ordinary dudes like Dawgtalkers change the way Afghan insurgents fight to protect their wives ad daughters when we vote for POTUS.

We need a POTUS who understands this.

And we need an electorate who understands this, too...
-because everything in The World is always at stake when we cast our votes- every time we have a national election.



WE decide the fate of the entire world, 4-8 years at a time.

That's why American elections are so important. It's why foreign-owned news agencies such as the BBC and Al-Jezeera devote so much of their time to American Politics. And why it should be law/tradition that every American votes from a truly informed P.O.V..


If I were "King Of America" for just one day, there'd be sweeping social/political reforms... all based upon one simple, but sweeping Executive Order.

____________________

I'd love to see a social/political conversation on these boards if Presidential debates were run like this. My guess: threads like these would be a whole lot more informed and engaging than they currently are.

I for one, would welcome such a change- because what we now present to each other is intolerable for more than a few minutes of my time- and the world's stakes are too high for us to be choosing from either Tweedle Weak and Tweedle Lame.

We voting Americans deserve not just better candidates; we deserve (and need) a better level of discourse, if we "Joe Six-Pack" types are to be entrusted with The Entire World for the next 4-8 years.

Following a trusted, centuries-old format to help choose our next leader would go a long way toward making us worthy of such a voice.


.02

And why it should be law/tradition that every American votes from a truly informed P.O.V..

Except for the fact that "truly informed" is highly subjective.

I think the only way you can encourage a populace to be "truly informed" is if you create the political structure so that their vote has a direct impact on the people casting those ballots. If you reduce the size and role of the Federal gov't, State level elections take on more importance. I'd also don't think referendums are used nearly as much as they should be.

I haven't had a chance to see if it's true or not, but about a week ago I watched a 7-8 minute video where a guy armchair diagnosis Hillary. He shows multiple video clips and concludes that she may be suffering from Parkinsons. A buddy at work told me that it had been removed from YouTube and the creator held a small press conference saying he was in good spirits and emotionally well and if he was found dead, he didn't commit suicide. (You know, cuz of all the mysterious deaths surrounding Clinton enemies and what not).

There's something clearly wrong with her. My question is why she is continuing on? Given her state of health and inability to control whatever is going on, I can't believe anyone really expects her to be able to serve a 4 year term?

I want to see it with Marquess of Queensberry Rules.


Oh and don't forget to check her for ear pieces so her team can't feed her information. Her hair can hide a lot.

Thank you Tulsa. Wouldn't that be great...no cheating?

That's about as good a reason to vote for anyone but Trump in my mind

Politics can get nasty. Mysterious deaths do happen, it's not just Clinton's enemies and such-- it's a phenomenon that happens around the world.

Take Julian Assange. Probably one of the most 'wanted' men in the world. How is he still alive? I just bring this up because I recall someone bringing it up in a previous thread. Well I'd give two possible explanations:

1. He's already so well known and his site Wikileaks so popular that him dying would set off major red flags. Many people would get the sense that something was wrong with that situation. I'm not sure how confident I am of this though; I think it's more that...

2. He has a "dead man's switch" in place. That is that he has already released a large amount of very damning information but that information is encrypted. If he mysteriously dies, the encryption key would be released and the hacker types out there who already have the files could then access them.

http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-staff-sick-pneumonia


It's hard to even know what is true and what is not anymore. The Clinton camp says it's pneumonia and that it has been spreading around the campaign team. Ok... again, friendly reminder that a statement was released on Monday that Hillary went and played with her granddaughters (a 1+ year old and a 3 month old) and then emerged from Chelsea'a apartment and hugged a young girl.

Am I making too big of a deal out of this? I just find it so strange and immoral to get diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia and then literally two days later start playing around with young kids. Like I try to stay away from people as much as possible when I have a common cold, just as a courtesy. But a cold isn't pneumonia. Pneumonia is a highly dangerous and deadly disease (especially around kids, elderly, and the immune-impaired).

I'm just taking the statements coming out of the Clinton camp and connecting the dots.

So in the last 3-4 days, Hillary has put half of Trump supporters (perhaps 25% of the country) in the "basket of deplorables", had a massive health episode/seizure at the 9/11 memorial and passed out, posted some bizarre explanation about a frog on her website, and is nowhere to be found.

Why do I feel like this election season is taking a massive turn? We haven't even gotten the juiciest leaks that are surely still to come. We haven't even gotten the debates where a more energetic, more passionate, and quite frankly sharper Donald Trump is going to annihilate her on all of her scandals, corruption, and disastrous decisions as Secretary of State.

Debates are stressful. Debating a masterful persuader such as Donald Trump, when he has had plenty of time to prepare and she has given him an insane amount of material to work with, would be extremely stressing. I actually think she would be better off skipping the debates altogether and making up some excuse about not being around Trump out of principle. I think that would be flimsy beyond belief but many of her supporters would eat it right up. More likely, she will show up and debate under favorable conditions, e.g. multiple breaks so she can regain her composure and have her doctors check in on her. Even then it's like, we all saw what happened a couple days ago. If a repeat of that happens during one of the debates, the election would be all but over.

So are you saying that white nationalist and other racist who support trump aren't deplorable?

And are you ignoring the fact that your boy is out here already making excuses for the debates?

Do I need to post the links again of your boy panicking and already calling the debates rigged, and lying about the NFL letter?

Or are you gonna ignore that too?

Anyways.

So one of the questions I want the mods to ask these two is the growing situation of east Asia and the Middle East.

We got China getting annoyed with North Korea, South Korea wanting to blast North Korea, North Korea talking trash toward China, China and Russia doing joint exercises in the sea, Russia growing Intolerant of their boy Assad, turkey deploying troops into Syria, Iran talking trash.

So, we know Russia is boys with Iran and China. They also have a shaky relationship with North Korea.

We know that both Russia and Iran have been trying(failing) to bait the US into military conflict.

So I hope the mods ask these two this question: with the ever growing tension between North Korea and their allies, along with the growing tension between Iran and the US, would you, as president, shoot down any Russian or Iranian ship/planes that harass US naval ships, potentially starting war?

I think terms like 'white nationalist' and 'racist' are thrown around far too loosely and in situations where those terms don't belong. 'Racist' has become sort of a catch-all term meaning something along the lines of "this has something to do with race and I disagree with you".

This is a shame because there are real racists out there. There is no doubt about it. I just think that labeling half of Trump supporters as deplorable (sexist, racist, etc) is..... well, deplorable. I've seen that sentiment thrown around on here as well, that anybody who votes for Trump must be a racist. That's a freaking lie. But to answer your question: the actual racists are deplorable, yes.

I don't see Trump panicking. Yeah he has mouthed off a few times about the debate structure and the moderators. If you think that is panicking, we'll just agree to disagree lol. You see, I have a different style than Trump. I'm not a huge talker; I don't make boisterous claims. But I do recognize that he's working the media and getting free advertising and such. He's setting the stage for Trump supporters to view him in a more favorable light, etc. It's good strategy.

Not for nothing, but what people have been talking mostly about is the words "half" and "Deplorable" and they completely skip over which of those supporters she was talking about. She was referring to racists and bigots that support Trump.

Should she have said it, no, I think it was dumb on so many levels and NO, I'm not defending her. But truth is, she's not entirely wrong IMO.

There are those that support Trump that I honestly feel are bigots and racists.. And yeah, that's deplorable.

Anyone want to disagree with bigots and racists being deplorable?

Yes. She directly named the kind of people she was talking about.

She blundered by putting a quarter of the country into the basket of deplorables. That was incorrect and irresponsible, and even she recognized that by calling her own comments "grossly generalistic". I do give her credit for backtracking from those original comments (to an extent).